BRIEF REVIEW
SPRINTING PERFORMANCE AND RESISTANCE-BASED
TRAINING INTERVENTIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
RICHARD BOLGER,1,2 MARK LYONS,1 ANDREW J. HARRISON,1
1
Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Biomechanics Research Unit, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland;
and 2Department of Health Sport & Exercise Science, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland
ABSTRACT
Bolger, R, Lyons, M, Harrison, AJ, and Kenny, IC. Sprinting
performance and resistance-based training interventions: A
systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 29(4): 1146–1156,
2015—The purpose of this systematic review was to search the
scientific literature for original research, addressing the effects
different forms of resistance-based training have on sprinting
performance in competitive sprinters. Specific key words
(Sprinters OR Sprint) NOT (Rugby, Soccer, Cycling, Swim-
ming, Paralympic, and Nutrition) were used to search relevant
databases through November 2013 for related literature. Orig-
inal research was reviewed using the Physiotherapy Evidence
Database scale. Five studies met the inclusion criteria: actively
competitive adult male sprinters who participated in a resis-
tance-based intervention (.4 weeks), with outcome measures
in the form of 10- to 100-m sprint times. Exclusion criteria
included acute studies (,4 weeks), nonsprinting populations,
and studies with no performance outcome measures (10- to
100-m sprint times). Three of the 5 studies used both locomo-
tor resistance and fixed plane resistance, whereas the remain-
ing 2 studies used more fixed plane resistance, for example,
squat and leg extension. Three of the studies showed a statis-
tical improvement in sprinting performance measures, for exam-
ple, a decrease in 30-m sprint time (p = 0.044), whereas 1
study showed a decrease in sprinting performance. The anal-
ysis concluded that resistance-based training has a positive
effect on sprinting performance. Varied input of locomotor
resistance and fixed plane resistance has resulted in similar
percentage change for sprinting performance. This review
adds to the body of knowledge by strongly highlighting the
dearth of literature exploring the effects of resistance-based
training on sprinting performance in competitive sprinters.
The short duration and wide range of exercises implemented
in studies to date are of concern, but coaches should not
Address correspondence to Richard Bolger, richard.bolger@ul.ie.
29(4)/1146–1156
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2015 National Strength and Conditioning Association
the TM
1146 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
AND IAN C. KENNY1
hesitate to implement well-planned resistance programs for
their sprint athletes.
KEY WORDS sprinters, resistance training, plyometrics,
specificity, transference
INTRODUCTION
S
printing performance has captivated audiences
across the world since the ancient Olympic games
in the eighth Century BC. Numerous studies have
been conducted using sprinters as a population.
The majority of these are acute studies and investigate a wide
variety of topics such as physiological changes (14,15,29),
alteration in stride length and frequency (1,7,16,19), and
acute biomechanical changes (10,32,39,42,43,53). There are
concerns that resistance training will result in muscle hyper-
trophy, increasing athlete mass thus impacting on speed
(47,62). Ross and Leveritt (47) have shown an increase
(5–10%) in type I and type II fiber cross-sectional area, in
sprinters after prolonged training ranging from 8 weeks to
8 months, which accounts for top-level sprinters’ muscular
physiques. Ross and Leveritt also note that as a physique
becomes more muscular, as in the case of a bodybuilder,
contractile characteristics (concentric/eccentric) become
slower. For clarity, this article refers to exercises, which
involve bounding, sled towing, prowler pushing, or any
other form of resisted sprint training as locomotor resistance.
Exercises such as back squats, squat jumps, leg extensions, or
exercises, which are performed on the spot, or in a fixed
plane, are referred to as fixed plane resistance.
To date, a large number of studies have examined the effects
of resistance-based interventions on sprinting performance in
team sports athletes, with the greatest volume of research
conducted on American football, Rugby, and soccer teams.
American football studies have focused on various training
methods over a season, yet report inconsistent findings about
which method can best improve speed development (22,31).
Many of the studies have demonstrated improvements in run-
ning performance outcome measures after a season of resis-
tance training (13,22,23,55,60). However, various methods
have been used to elicit improved speed development of these
athletes. Many have used fixed plane resistances such as jump
squats (21), power cleans (13,20–23,34,48,60), medicine ball

throws (38), and Olympic weightlifting variations (13,20–
23,48,60) supplementing their programs with more
locomotor-oriented resistance training such as plyometrics
(13,20,34,38,55) and maximal treadmill running (48).
The available studies on Rugby and sprinting perfor-
mance suggest similar findings as American football. For
example, Baker’s (3) study report a shorter intervention
time of 6–8 weeks, unlike the American football studies that
lasted as long as an entire season. These studies have used
similar training methods to American football, including
many locomotor resistance exercises such as over-speed
training (9), resisted sprint training (18,59), plyometric
training (34,54), and fixed plane resistance exercises
such as jump squats (3,9,17,44) and Olympic weightlifting
variations (3).
The body of research on soccer has also presented similar
findings with interventions lasting from 3 to 10 weeks
(8,12,27,28,35,36,41,46,56–58,61) involving fixed plane
resistance training interventions of back squats (27,35,36),
half squats (35,41,46,61), and countermovement jumps
(35,46,56). They also use many locomotor training exer-
cises, including repeated sprint training (12,28,57,61), plyo-
metrics (8,35,36,41,46,56), speed, agility, quickness (27), and
assisted and resisted sprint training (58). Many of these
studies have used both locomotor and fixed plane resistance
programs concurrently, some even using complex training
methods (36).
Several key recommendations have arisen from these
studies, primarily a necessity for further research examining
the validity, transfer, and periodization method of these
programs. The overall theme suggests that longer (.8
weeks) studies yield improved speed development
(8,12,13,20–23,27,31,35,51,54,55,57,59–61), and that a com-
bined approach of resistance training, and locomotor train-
ing improves speed (3,11,13,22,27,31,48,54,55,58,61,62).
Both American football and rugby have position-specific
considerations, which may influence overall study results
(2,13,25,31,44). The soccer studies showed significant im-
provements with interventions lasting longer than 8 weeks,
again with a combined approach of resistance training and
locomotor training (8,12,27,57,58,61). There was little focus
on running technique development in these studies, and
none of the studies tested speed beyond 60 m.
From a broader perspective, the performance outcome
measures of the studies are not easily comparable with
competitive sprint performance, as it is harder to control
subject variability in running mechanics and body mass. This
is partly due to an overall difference in focus on body
composition, as sprinting strength to weight ratio is impor-
tant for the expression of force. A greater body mass to
strength ratio will aid overall speed production (47), whereas
both American football (25,45) and rugby (2) place greater
emphasis on heavier body mass in conjunction with
strength, speed, and power due to the collision-based nature
of their sports. The absence of resistance training trials
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
within the sprinting population is apparent, yet most are
performing resistance training as part of their overall training
program. Longitudinal controlled trials involving track ath-
letes, in particular sprinters, are not abundant in the literature
(62). This illustrates a gap in the literature on resistance
modality and programming for competitive sprinters.
Numerous review articles have aimed to clarify the effects
of different modalities of training on sprinting performance
(6,11,24,26,49). The representation of sprinters among their
population samples, however, is sparse. To date, strength
and conditioning professionals and athletics coaches only
have a small number of sport-specific studies to draw from
to validate their training program selection for the modern
sprinter. This systematic review focuses specifically on the
prevalence and effects of various resistance training modal-
ities on sprinters’ performance. There is a lack of evidence-
based research to support the apparent beneficial effects of
various resistance training modalities on performance in
competitive sprinters. A key consideration, however, is
whether resistance training improves sprinting performance
specifically. If so, what type of resistance training modalities
or exercises are best suited for increased sprint performance?
The purpose of this systematic review was to search the
body of scientific literature for original research, addressing
the effects of different forms of resistance training on sprint-
ing performance in competitive sprinters.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The Cochrane Collaboration Prisma protocol (33) was used
to complete the review. Electronic databases from 1946 to
November 2013 were searched, including Pub Med,
CINAHL, Science Direct, MEDLINE, Sports Discus, Jour-
nal of Strength and Conditioning Research, and the Strength and
Conditioning Journal. Key words used were Sprinters OR
Sprint NOT Rugby, Soccer, Cycling, Swimming, Paralympic,
and Nutrition. Search terms were modified accordingly to fit
the requirements or nuances of the database used.
Study Criteria
Studies were eligible if they met the following inclusion
criteria: competitive adult male sprinters who participated in
a resistance-based intervention (.4 weeks), with outcome
measures of sprinting performance (10- to 100-m sprint
times). Sprinters were defined as those who are currently
competitive in 100- to 400-m event distances. Interventions
included any resistance training, including plyometrics,
weight training, calisthenics, and resisted running, but not
excluding any other novel approaches where resistance is
applied to the body. Studies were excluded if they were acute
in nature postactivation potentiation studies or biomechan-
ical studies without a training intervention. Studies involving
untrained subjects, team sport athletes, or nonsprinters were
also excluded. Subjects needed to be 16- to 35-year-old
healthy adults with no musculoskeletal injuries.
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2015 | 1147
 Sprinting and Resistance-Based Training Interventions
Quality Assessment
Original research was reviewed using the Physiotherapy
Evidence Database (PEDro) scale (33). The PEDro scale con-
sists of 11 items related to scientific rigor, including eligibility
criteria, random allocation strategy, concealed allocation,
follow-up comparison, baseline comparison, blinding of sub-
jects, therapists (i.e., trainers) and assessors, intention to treat,
between-group analysis, and both point and variability meas-
ures. Five studies met the inclusion criteria (4,5,30,31,50),
a similar number of studies used in a investigation by Yama-
moto et al. (62) on elite endurance runners, which were then
independently evaluated by 2 reviewers using the PEDro
scale. Consensus was achieved on scores given to the 5 ar-
ticles. A third reviewer was not needed in this case to resolve
scoring issues. The Kappa value (measure of observed agree-
ment) for all 5 articles was 1.0 (perfect agreement).
Figure 1. Criteria for selection of articles for review.
the TM
1148 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Data Extraction
Data were extracted using a standardized form created in
Visual Basic to filter the required information into a contin-
uous string in Microsoft Excel. The form included a hierar-
chy for assessment including the study citation and the
inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies were assessed first by
journal title, second by abstract, and third by full article
review, when the journal article was either included or
excluded based on the criteria illustrated in Figure 1.
RESULTS
Physiotherapy Evidence Database scores for the 5 selected
articles ranged from 6 to 7 out of a maximum of 11 (Table 1).
Concealment of allocation is not entirely relevant in studies
of this nature because, given the nature of resistance training
and sample selection methods used, it is difficult for
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 1. Physiotherapy evidence database scale (40).

Kamandulis Balsalobre- Martinopoulou Blazevich and Satkunskiene_

et al. (30) Fernandez et al. (4) et al. (37) Jenkins (5) et al. (50)

Eligibility criteria were specified 1 1 1 1 1

Subjects were randomly 0 0 1 1 0
allocated to groups
Allocation was concealed 0 0 0 0 0
The groups were similar at 1 1 1 1 1
baseline regarding the most
important prognostic
indicators
There was blinding of all 0 0 0 0 0
subjects
There was blinding of all 0 0 0 0 0
therapists who administered
the therapy
There was blinding of all 0 0 0 0 0
assessors who measured at
least 1 key outcome
Measures of at least 1 key 1 1 1 1 1
outcome were obtained from
more than 85% of the
subjects initially allocated to
groups
All subjects for whom outcome 1 1 1 1 1
measures were available
received the treatment or
control condition as
allocated, or, where this was
not the case, data for at least
1 key outcome were analyzed
by “intention to treat”
The result of between-group 1 1 1 1 1
statistical comparisons is
reported for at least 1 key
outcome
The study provided both point 1 1 1 1 1
measures and measures of
variability for at least 1 key
outcome
Total points awarded 6 6 7 7 6

researchers to keep themselves and participants unaware of
the treatment and groups involved in these types of studies.
Blinding of subjects and therapists (i.e., trainers) was also not
applicable in this case.
Three of the 5 studies reported increased running perfor-
mance after training intervention. These studies reported that
the increase was statistically significant. A fourth, Blazevich
and Jenkins (5), reported that the increase was not statistically
significant. The fifth, Satkunskien_e et al. (50), showed
a decrease in running performance after intervention. Three
of the 5 studies (30,37,50) used locomotor-oriented resistance
training involving unilateral exercises, from plyometrics to
parachute resisted running, whereas the remaining 2 studies
(4,5) used more traditional bilateral movements or fixed plane
resistance such as leg extensions and squats. Notably, all
groups used exercises of a dynamic or explosive nature with
the exception of the Blazevich and Jenkins’ (5) study. All 5
studies are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
The study by Kamandulis et al. (30) scored 6/11 on the
PEDro scale. Random allocation was not used, and blinding
of subjects and therapists (i.e., trainers) was not possible in
this case. Kamandulis et al. (30) examined contractile
properties of the quadriceps as well as running performance
after 3 weeks of power endurance training. The training
intervention consisted of maximal-intensity sprint repetitions
with short recovery periods, followed by 1-week recovery

VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2015 | 1149

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 1150

Sprinting and Resistance-Based Training Interventions

TABLE 2. Reviewed articles.*

Physiotherapy
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Resistance Sprint evidence

the

Subject training type Description of treatment Results (sprinting performance database

Authors description (n) Anthropometrics and duration and control groups outcome measure) (%) scale

Kamandulis 7 national and M age = 20.7 y, Power PE = 60–90% of max for SD = 0.96; p # 0.05, ES 60 m 6
et al. (30) international SD = 1.8; M endurance, 3 20 s 5–10 times (0.5- = 1.7; MVC: ^7.4% ^1.83%
sprinters: 100 height = 1.82 m, wk; recovery, to 1-min rest) (hurdles, (SD = 7.3%); CMJ:
m = 10.81 s SD = 0.006; M 1 wk; PT, 4 upstairs, uphill, on ^3.5% (SD = 8.0%);
(SD = 0.22); mass = 73.0 kg, wk; total = 8 spot); PT = 95–100% DJ: ^8.7% (SD =
training SD = 11.0; M fat wk (27 of max for 5–10 s 5– 7.9%) (p # 0.05 in all
experience = 6.0 % = 7.6%, SD = sessions) 10 times (5-min rest); cases,
y; SD = 1.0 2.9 CT = NA ES = 1.4–1.7)
Balsalobre- 7 Spanish high- M age = 21.7 6 Maximal PT, 10 PT = 40% of 1RM + Improved 30 m ^1.43%, 30 m 6
Fernandez level hurdlers 2.4 y; M height = wk; 2 times increments of 5% until SD = 4.13 6 0.16, p = ^1.43%
et al. (4) personal record 181.8 6 3.9 cm; per wk; total = max power was 0.044*; 7.9% increase
= 54.78 6 2.54 M mass = 75.1 10 wk attained (Myotest Pro); in 1RM (kg) (Z =
6 4.1 kg 22.03, p = 0.021,
TM

s; training squat jumps;

experience = CT = NA power = 0.70, dc =
national and 0.39); 2.3% increase
international in squat jump (Z =
competitors 21.69, p = 0.045,
power = 0.31, dc =
0.29); 1.43%
decrease in 30-m
sprint (Z = 21.70, p =
0.044, power = 0.46,
dc = 0.12); 4%
increase in power (W)
(Z = 20.98, p = 0.16,
power = 0.05, dc =
0.28)
Martinopoulou 16 sprinters M age = 25 6 4 y; Resisted sprint PT $10% decrease in PT improved 10, 20, 40, Not 7
et al. (37) training M height = 172 6 training; running velocity and 50-m; sprints; disclosed
experience = 0.8; M mass = parachute; 3 (parachute); maximum resisted p = 0.001;
4 6 1.1 y of 61.5 6 10.2 times per wk; sprints of 0–50 m; CT unresisted p = 0.04
sprint training; 8 total = 4 wk = maximum sprints of
parachute; 8 10–50 m; unresisted
control training (no parachute)

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

and 4 weeks of high-intensity power training. The high-

intensity power training involved running with weight

*PE = power endurance; ES = effect size; PT = power training; CT = control trial; MVC = maximum voluntary contraction; CMJ = countermovement jump; DJ = drop jump; 1RM =
attached through a belt, jumps from 1 step followed by a ver-
tical jump, forward jumps, and crouch-start running.
Athletes used intensities of 95–100% of maximum for 5–10
7

1 repetition maximum; RT = resistance training; HV = high velocity; HVG = high-velocity group; NA = not applicable; ST = standardization training; SV = slow velocity.
seconds, repeated 5–10 times, with 5-minute recovery
between exercises. The power endurance training involved
vertical jumps, multiple forward jumps, running exercises
30–40 m =
HVG 20 m;

20.38%
(hurdles, upstairs, uphill, and on the spot), and sprints alter-
^1.9%

nating with slow jogging. The athletes performed each

fly =

exercise at 60–90% of maximum for 20 seconds, which

they repeated 5–10 times with 30-second rest intervals
6 0.35 s; post 10.0 6
improved flying 20 m =

between exercises. This combination of power endurance

40-m time = pre 9.62
Power endurance = 60– Running speed 30- to

training followed by high-intensity power training resulted

Standardization ST = 3 sets 10RM slow; High-velocity group;

in improved 60-m sprint times by 1.83% (SD = 0.96; p #

0.05, effect size [ES] = 1.7). The authors suggested that
sprint performance is poorly predicted by muscle intrinsic
p , 0.20

properties, and that neural adaptation provides for the

0.57 s

improved adaptation.
Balsalobre-Fernandez et al. (4) recorded a score of 6/11 on
the PEDro scale due to the small sample size (n = 7), the
rest; PT = 100%; 3- to
90%; 30–60 s passive
1RM; SV = 70–90%

absence of a control group, and blinding within the study.

recovery; CT = NA

5-min passive rest;

Balsalobre-Fernandez et al. (4) evaluated the effect of maximal

HV = 30–50% of

power training on performance in sprinters over a 10-week

of 1RM; 4-min

intervention. They used squat jumps as the primary exercise,

CT = NA

starting at 40% of squat jump, 1 repetition maximum (1RM)

with subsequent increments of 5% until maximum power out-
put was attained (measured using a Myotest Pro; Myotest Inc.,
Durango, CO, USA). This was performed twice a week for
wk; total = 14

a 10-week period. Their study suggests that neural adaptation

4 wk; PT = 4

per wk 8 wk;
endurance =

total = 8 wk
wk; RT high
velocity = 7

velocity = 7
training = 4

wk; 3 times
wk; RT low

is again the primary mechanism underlying performance gain,

although this was not quantified or measured. Balsalobre-
Fernandez et al. (4) observed improvements in squat jump
7 sprinters training M age = 26 6 2.5 Power
wk

1RM of 7.9% with a mean difference pre-post of 13.7 kg

(p = 0.021), a 2.3% increase in flight time for the squat jump
1.4 y; M height =
1.82 6 0.05 cm;

with a mean pre-post difference of 13.9 milliseconds

76.0 6 3.27 kg
M mass = 75.7
M age = 19.0 6

cm; M mass =
183.0 6 4.11
y; M height =

(p = 0.045), and a 1.43% improvement in 30-m sprint time

with a mean pre-post difference of 20.06 seconds (p = 0.044).
6 4.7 kg

Martinopoulou et al. (37) scored highest with 7/11 on the

PEDro scale as a result of using random allocation of
groups. Martinopoulou et al. (37) studied the effects of re-
sisted sprint training on sprint performance in competitive
elite 60 m; result
ranked sprinters;

experience $5 y
events; training

sprinters (n = 16). The study was conducted during the

100- to 400-m

experience =

6.77–7.51 s

precompetitive phase, lasting 4 weeks. The subjects were

10 Nationally

divided into a resisted training group (using the parachute),

and an unresisted group. The groups both trained 3 times
per week. This included 4 3 30-m and 4 3 50-m maximum
effort sprints, with a recovery time of 4–6 minutes, respec-
tively. There was a 10-minute recovery time between the
Blazevich and

Satkunskiene_
Jenkins (5)

et al. (50)

last 30-m sprint and the first 50-m sprint. The resistance
applied in this study was a large parachute and was adjusted
accordingly so that running velocity per 30- to 50-m set was
not allowed to exceed a 10% reduction in the subjects’ un-
resisted sprint time for that distance. The resisted group
improved significantly over various sprint distances, both

VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2015 | 1151

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 1152

Sprinting and Resistance-Based Training Interventions

TABLE 3. Description of treatment and control group training.*

Balsalobre-
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Fernandez Blazevich and

the

Author Kamandulis et al. (30) et al. (4) Martinopoulou et al. (37) Jenkins (5) Satkunskiene_ et al. (50)

Treatment Locomotor PE = 60–90% of max for 20 s .10% decrease in running PE, standing jumps, multiple
group/ training 5–10 times (0.5- to 1-min velocity (parachute); hops and jumps, barrier
control rest); vertical jumps; multiple experimental group; hops, run up stairs, run up
group forward jumps; running maximum sprints with hill, run in place; exercise
exercises (hurdles, upstairs, parachute; 4 3 30 m with 4- intensity = 60–90%,
uphill, and on spot); sprints min rest; 10-min rest duration—20 s, 5–10
alternating with slow between 4 3 50 with 6-min repetitions with 30- to 60-s
jogging; HP = 95–100% of rest; CT = maximum sprints; passive rest. The PT
max for 5–10 s 5–10 times unresisted training (no resisted sled-pulling
(5-min rest); runs with parachute); 4 3 30 m with sprinting, depth jump,
weight belt; 1-step vertical 4-min rest; 10-min rest; 4 3 multiple hops and jumps,
jumps; forward jumps; 50 with 6-min rest block start run, and
crouch-start running; exercises for muscle
TM

dynamic inertial loads strength: lever-seated calf

raise, Barbell back
extension, Pec Deck
butterfly’s, lever-lying leg
curl. Exercise intensity =
100%, duration—10 s, 5–7
repetitions with 3- to 5-min
passive rest, 5-min rest
between sets
Stationary Vertical jumps 40% of 1RM + Squat hip Lever-seated calf raise, Barbell
training increments of extension; leg back extension, Peck Deck
5% until max extension; hip butterfly’s, lever-lying leg
power was flexion; leg curl
attained flexion
(Myotest Pro);
squat jumps
Frequency 6–9 h a wk; power endurance, 2 times per wk; 3 times per wk; total 4 wk 2 times per wk; 3 times per wk; 4 wks power
3 wk; recovery, 1 wk; PT, 4 total 10 wk 4 wk endurance; 4 wk PT; total 8
wk; total 8 wk (27 sessions) standardization wk
training; 7 wk
RT; total 7 wk

*PE = power endurance training; HP = high-intensity power training; CT = control trial; PT = power training; 1RM = 1 repetition maximum; RT = resistance training.

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

in the acceleration phase and in the maximum speed phase;
0–10 m (p = 0.043), 10–20 m (p = 0.017), 0–20 m (p = 0.009),
and 40–50 m (p = 0.023). The unresisted control group
showed no significant improvements over the same distan-
ces with the exception of the acceleration phase 0–20 m
(p = 0.012). The findings suggest that the parachute seems
to be a suitable training method for performance improve-
ment in the acceleration phase and maximum speed phase
in sprinting.
Blazevich and Jenkins (5) also scored a 7/11 on the
PEDro scale as a result of using random group allocation.
Blazevich and Jenkins (5) considered the effect of speed of
resistance training exercises on competitive nationally
ranked sprinters (n = 10). The intervention consisted of
4-week standardization training to ensure homogeneity
between groups by controlling the velocity of the move-
ments before the trial. Movement velocities for this period
were noted as being slow, with eccentric and concentric
phases lasting 1–2 seconds. This was followed by 7 weeks
of resistance training with high- and low-velocity groups.
The results did not demonstrate any significant difference
between groups. There was a 1.9% improvement in sprint-
ing performance (p = 0.08; ES = 0.71) in the high-velocity
group with respect to the flying 20-m sprint. The authors
suggested resistance training movement speed does not
have a significant effect on sprint performance when the
resistance training is combined with sprint training in
nationally ranked athletes. Blazevich and Jenkins (5) also
suggest that its effects would only be significant after longer
training periods, due to the level of the athlete’s current
adaptation to resistance, the emphasis placed on specific
sprint training on the track, and the short period of time
spent resistance training.
Satkunskien_e et al. (50) scored a 6/11 on the PEDro scale
due to the lack of random allocation concealment and blind-
ing. Satkunskien_e et al. (50) studied the effect of a power
training program on running kinematics. Seven elite sprint-
ers participated in the study 3 times per week over an 8-week
period. The program comprised initial 4 weeks of power
endurance training at 60–90% of 1RM with 30- to
60-second rest between exercises, followed by 4 weeks of
power training at 100% of 1RM with 3- to 5-minute rest
between exercises.
The power endurance training consisted of standing
jumps, multiple hops and jumps, barrier hops, stair runs,
uphill runs, and runs on the spot. The intensity was set at
60–90% intensity, and the training comprised of 20 seconds
bouts of activity with 30- to 60-second passive rest in
between exercises. The power training consisted of resisted
sled-pulling sprints, depth jumps, multiple hops and jumps,
block starts, and a selection of other assistance exercises
(lever-seated calf raise, barbell back extension, machine fly,
butterfly, and lever-lying leg curl). The intensity was set at
100% of 1RM with 10-second activity bouts and 3- to
5-minute recovery between exercises. The results indicated
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
some improvement but no significant increase in maximal
running speed (pre = 9.62 6 0.35 seconds, post = 10.0 6
0.57 seconds, p = 0.08), ground contact (pre = 119 6
15.39 seconds, post = 115 6 10.41 seconds, p = 0.50), step
length (pre = 2.24 6 0.16 m, post = 2.28 6 0.19 m, p = 0.69),
and step frequency (pre = 4.31 6 0.39 seconds, post =
4.42 6 0.37 seconds, p = 0.19). There were no significant
differences in many of the other parameters, including joint
angles, hip flexion, and foot trajectory.
DISCUSSION
The current review addresses the question of resistance
training modalities and performance outcome for sprint
athletes. This review is unique because of its narrow focus
on competitive sprinters, similar to an investigation by
Yamamoto et al. (62) on the effects of resistance training
on high-level endurance athletes. It comprehensively reviews
the literature in the area and includes a systematic review
with, PEDro scaling, and protocols used. This systematic
review of 5 resistance training studies suggests that a varied
input in the form of locomotor resistance (involving unilat-
eral movement, 2–4 times per week, ranging from 60 to
100% intensities) and fixed plane resistance (involving bilat-
eral movement, 2–4 times per week, ranging from 30 to 90%
1RM) can provide for improved sprinting performance. The-
ses ranges do not provide specific direction for a sprint
coach, but the variety of movements emphasizes that a varied
input can produce similar performance outcomes. The mod-
erate PEDro scale scores (6–7) should not diminish the qual-
ity of the reviewed studies, considering the constraints that
training studies have in blinding subjects, therapists (i.e.,
trainers), and assessors to the treatment received.
Despite the volume of sprint studies available, few have
focused specifically on competitive sprinters. One limitation of
this review was the small number of studies that met the
inclusion criteria, but this further emphasizes that competitive
sprint coaches are using various methods of resistance training
with unpublished empirical evidence to substantiate the type,
frequency, and programming of these activities. Furthermore,
the ceiling effect is relevant here as subjects reviewed
may have reached a maximal level of strength and power,
thus demonstrated smaller improvements in performance.
Although the studies included provide evidence that resis-
tance training improves sprinting performance, further
research is needed to elucidate the most effective combina-
tions of training methods for optimal transference and the
most effective programming models to elicit improved
performance. It is noteworthy that the reviewed studies show
a varied input of resistance from that of a locomotor resistance
to that of a fixed plane resistance with similar performance
outcome improvements. It is also worth nothing that all
groups used exercises of a dynamic or explosive nature, with
the exception of the study by Blazevich and Jenkins (5). Sprint
performance therefore may be optimized by a variety of resis-
tance training modalities.
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2015 | 1153
 Sprinting and Resistance-Based Training Interventions
Despite the link between resistance training and sprinting
performance in these studies, 3 of the studies (30,37,50) used
predominantly locomotor type resistance training such as
plyometrics, horizontal jumping patterns, antiphase move-
ment (unilateral), and stair climbs, whereas the remaining 2
studies (4,5) used fixed plane resistance movements like
squat jumps and leg extensions. Two of the studies (30,50)
used a combination of locomotor training and fixed plane
resistance, which is mentioned by de Villarreal et al. (11),
with similarly successful findings. Additionally, while all of
the studies in this review consisted of relatively short training
periods (average = 7.4 weeks), it is unknown how chronic
adaptations to these training methods will affect sprinting
performance. Acute improvements in running with resis-
tance training are posited to be associated with neuromus-
cular adaptations (11,26,62), but the effects of chronic
resistance training on muscle mass, muscle metabolic activ-
ity, or the risk benefit is still unknown. Because the studies in
this review assessed competitive sprinters, it was probably
difficult to control training for a longer period of time
because of the competitive season (62).
To disseminate the results of resistance-based training for
sprinters, researchers must consider the different modalities
of training available. First, general physical preparation,
which involves general conditioning to improve strength,
speed, endurance, flexibility, and skill followed by more
specific training, which aims to improve the individual
athlete’s performance (52). Second, the modality of resis-
tance training, fixed plane resistance training (e.g., squat,
deadlift, and bench press) with the option of open and closed
chain movements, which has been studied extensively in the
broader literature (5,11,25,26,45,49,62), or locomotor resis-
tance training. Locomotor resistance training has been the
most frequently studied among competitive sprinters. The
population sample remains too small to form conclusive
opinion on locomotor resistance training benefit over tradi-
tional sprint training on a track (4,5,30,37,50). It is unclear
which forms show the optimal transference to sprinting per-
formance. There are many ways of developing relative
strength (52), but it remains unclear whether locomotor
resistance or fixed plane resistance show greater transference
to sprinting performance. The muscle activation of these
movements will reveal more about which exercise mimics
the muscle activation, neural adaptations, and neural
sequencing required to facilitate maximum speed perfor-
mance outcomes in competitive sprinters. Future research
here is certainly warranted.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This research supports increased sprinting performance with
resistance-based training programs involving unilateral
movement, 2–4 times per week at 60–100% of 1RM. The
importance of a general strength base in conjunction with
dynamically oriented strength programming forms the basis
for training competitive sprinters. This review illustrates how
the TM
1154 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
different modalities of resistance training result in similar
performance improvements yet there is no clear modality,
which stands out as being optimal for speed development.
Coaches should use structured, periodized resistance
training regimens based on the health and ability of
individual athletes during each training phase. The positive
benefits of resistance-based training in sprinters cannot be
overlooked despite the limited body of empirical evidence.
However, it is evident that there is a need for further
research with highly trained competitive sprinters on the
potential benefits of various forms of resistance-based
training on sprinting performance. This article illustrates
the need for further research within the sprinting population
regarding the specificity of different resistance training
modalities to sprinting performance. Research needs to
determine whether there is true transference between many
of the resistance-based exercises used in sprint training, from
both a neural activation and overall adaptation point of view.
REFERENCES
1. Aerenhouts, D, Delecluse, C, Hagman, F, Taeymans, J, Debaere, S,
Van Gheluwe, B, and Clarys, P. Comparison of anthropometric
characteristics and sprint start performance between elite adolescent
and adult sprint athletes. Eur J Sports Sci 12: 9–15, 2012.
2. Alaphilippe, A, Mandigout, S, Ratel, S, Bonis, J, Courteix, D, and
Duclos, M. Longitudinal follow-up of biochemical markers of
fatigue throughout a sporting season in young elite rugby players.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 3376–3384, 2012.
3. Baker, D. A series of studies on the training of high-intensity muscle
power in rugby league football players. J Strength Cond Res 15: 198–
209, 2001.
4. Balsalobre-Fernández, C, Tejero-Gonzalez, CM, del Campo-
Vecino, J, and Alonso-Curiel, D. The effects of a maximal power
training cycle on the strength, maximum power, vertical jump
height and acceleration of high-level 400-meter hurdlers. J Hum
Kinet 36: 119–126, 2013.
5. Blazevich, AJ and Jenkins, DG. Effect of the movement speed of
resistance training exercises on sprint and strength performance in
concurrently training elite junior sprinters. J Sports Sci 20: 981–990, 2002.
6. Brughelli, M and Cronin, J. A review of research on the mechanical
stiffness in running and jumping: Methodology and implications.
Scand J Med Sci Sports 18: 417–426, 2008.
7. Bushnell, T and Hunter, I. Differences in technique between
sprinters and distance runners at equal and maximal speeds. Sports
Biomech 6: 261–268, 2007.
8. Chelly, MS, Ghenem, MA, Abid, K, Hermassi, S, Tabka, Z, and
Shephard, RJ. Effects of in-season short-term plyometric training
program on leg power, jump- and sprint performance of soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 2670–2676, 2010.
9. Cook, CJ, Beaven, CM, and Kilduff, LP. Three weeks of eccentric
training combined with overspeed exercises enhances power and
running speed performance gains in trained athletes. J Strength Cond
Res 27: 1280–1286, 2013.
10. Cronin, J, Hansen, K, Kawamori, N, and McNair, P. Effects of
weighted vests and sled towing on sprint kinematics. Sports Biomech
7: 160–172, 2008.
11. de Villarreal, ES, Requena, B, and Cronin, JB. The effects of
plyometric training on sprint performance: A meta-analysis.
J Strength Cond Res 26: 575–584, 2012.
12. Dupont, G, Akakpo, K, and Berthoin, S. The effect of in-season,
high-intensity interval training in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
18: 584–589, 2004.

13. Ebben, WP and Blackard, DO. Strength and conditioning practices
of National Football League strength and conditioning coaches.
J Strength Cond Res 15: 48–58, 2001.
14. Gorostiaga, EM, Asiain, X, Izquierdo, M, Postigo, A, Aguado, R,
Alonso, JM, and Ibanez, J. Vertical jump performance and blood
ammonia and lactate levels during typical training sessions in elite
400-m runners. J Strength Cond Res 24: 1138–1149, 2010.
15. Grandys, M, Majerczak, J, Zapart-Bukowska, J, Kulpa, J, and
Zoladz, JA. Gonadal hormone status in highly trained sprinters and
in untrained men. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1079–1084, 2011.
16. Hanon, C and Gajer, B. Velocity and stride parameters of world-
class 400-meter athletes compared with less experienced runners.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 524–531, 2009.
17. Harris, N, Cronin, J, Hopkins, W, and Hansen, K. Squat jump
training at maximal power loads vs. heavy loads: Effect on sprint
ability. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1742–1749, 2008.
18. Harrison, A and Bourke, G. The effect of resisted sprint training on
speed and strength performance in male Rugby players. J Strength
Cond Res 10: 275–283, 2008.
19. Hobara, H, Inoue, K, Gomi, K, Sakamoto, M, Muraoka, T, Iso, S,
and Kanosue, K. Continuous change in spring-mass characteristics
during a 400 m sprint. J Sci Med Sport 13: 256–261, 2010.
20. Hoffman, JR, Cooper, J, Wendell, M, and Kang, J. Comparison of
Olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football
players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 129–135, 2004.
21. Hoffman, JR, Ratamess, NA, Cooper, JJ, Kang, J, Chilakos, A, and
Faigenbaum, AD. Comparison of loaded and unloaded jump squat
training on strength/power performance in college football players.
J Strength Cond Res 19: 810–815, 2005.
22. Hoffman, JR, Ratamess, N, Klatt, M, Faigenbaum, A, Ross, RE,
Tranchina, N, McCurley, R, Kang, J, and Kraemer, W. Comparison
between different off-season resistance training programs in division
III American college football players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 11–19,
2009.
23. Hoffman, JR, Wendell, M, Cooper, J, and Kang, J. Comparison
between linear and nonlinear in-season training programs in
freshman football players. J Strength Cond Res 17: 561–565, 2003.
24. Hrysomallis, C. The effectiveness of resisted movement training on
sprinting and jumping performance. J Strength Cond Res 26: 299–
306, 2012.
25. Jacobson, BH, Conchola, EG, Glass, RG, and Thompson, BJ.
Longitudinal morphological and performance profiles for American,
NCAA division I football players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 2347–2354,
2013.
26. Johnson, BA, Salzberg, CL, and Stevenson, DA. A systematic
review: Plyometric training programs for young children. J Strength
Cond Res 25: 2623–2633, 2011.
27. Jovanovic, M, Sporis, G, Omrcen, D, and Fiorentini, F. Effects of
speed, agility, quickness training method on power performance in
elite soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 25: 1285–1292, 2011.
28. Jullien, H, Bisch, C, Largouët, N, Manouvrier, C, Carling, CJ, and
Amiard, V. Does a short period of lower limb strength training
improve performance in field-based tests of running and agility in
young professional soccer players? J Strength Cond Res 22: 404–411,
2008.
29. Jürimäe, T, Utsal, L, Mäestu, J, Purge, P, and Jürimäe, J. Hormone
response to jumping tests in adolescent sprinters. Kinesiology 43:
137–144, 2011.
30. Kamandulis, S, Brazaitis, M, Stanislovaitis, A, Duchateau, J, and
Stanislovaitiene, J. Effect of a periodized power training program on
the functional performances and contractile properties of the
quadriceps in sprinters. Res Q Exerc Sport 83: 540–545, 2013.
31. Kraemer, W. A series of studies-the physiological basis for strength
training in American football: Fact over philosophy. J Strength Cond
Res 11: 131–142, 1997.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
32. Krzysztof, M and Mero, A. A kinematics analysis of three best 100
m performances ever. J Hum Kinet 36: 149–160, 2013.
33. Liberati, A, Altman, D, Tetzlaff, J, Mulrow, C, Gøtzsche, PC,
Ioannidis, JP, Clarke, M, Devereaux, PJ, Kleijnen, J, and Moher, D.
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-
analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions:
Explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 69: e1–e38, 2009.
34. Lockie, RG, Murphy, AJ, Schultz, AB, Knight, TJ, and Janse de
Jonge, XA. The effects of different speed training protocols on sprint
acceleration kinematics and muscle strength and power in field
sport athletes. J Strength Cond Res 26: 1539–1550, 2012.
35. Lopez-Segovia, M, Palao Andres, JM, and Gonzalez-Badillo, JJ.
Effect of 4 months of training on aerobic power, strength, and
acceleration in two under-19 soccer teams. J Strength Cond Res 24:
2705–2714, 2010.
36. Maio Alves, JM, Rebelo, AN, Abrantes, C, and Sampaio, J. Short-
term effects of complex and contrast training in soccer players’
vertical jump, sprint, and agility abilities. J Strength Cond Res 24:
936–941, 2010.
37. Martinopoulou, K, Paradisis, G, Katsikas, C, and Smirniotou, A. The
effects of resisted training using parachute on sprint performance.
J Biol Exer 7: 7–23, 2011.
38. Mayhew, JL, Bird, M, Cole, ML, Koch, AJ, Jacques, JA, Ware, JS,
Buford, BN, and Fletcher, KM. Comparison of the backward
overhead medicine ball throw to power production in college
football players. J Strength Cond Res 19: 514–518, 2005.
39. Milan, C and Krzysztof, M. Differences between the elite and sub-
elite sprinters in kinematic and dynamic determinations of
countermovement jump and drop jump. J Strength Cond Res 27:
3021–3027, 2013.
40. Moseley, AM, Herbert, RD, Sherrington, C, and Maher, CG.
Evidence for physiotherapy practice: A survey of the physiotherapy
evidence database (PEDro). Aust J Physiother 48: 43–49, 2002.
41. Mujika, I, Santisteban, J, and Castagna, C. In-season effect of short-
term sprint and power training programs on elite junior soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 2581–2587, 2009.
42. Okkonen, O and Hakkinen, K. Biomechanical comparison between
sprint start, sled pulling, and selected squat-type exercises. J Strength
Cond Res 27: 2662–2673, 2013.
43. Paulson, S and Braun, WA. The influence of parachute-resisted
sprinting on running mechanics in collegiate track athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 1680–1685, 2011.
44. Randell, AD, Cronin, JB, Keogh, JW, Gill, ND, and Pedersen, MC.
Effect of instantaneous performance feedback during 6 weeks of
velocity-based resistance training on sport-specific performance
tests. J Strength Cond Res 25: 87–93, 2011.
45. Robbins, DW, Goodale, TL, Kuzmits, FE, and Adams, AJ. Changes
in the athletic profile of elite college American football players.
J Strength Cond Res 27: 861–874, 2013.
46. Ronnestad, BR, Kvamme, NH, Sunde, A, and Raastad, T. Short-
term effects of strength and plyometric training on sprint and jump
performance in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
773–780, 2008.
47. Ross, A and Leveritt, M. Long-term metabolic and skeletal muscle
adaptations to short-sprint training: Implications for sprint training
and tapering. Sports Med 31: 1063–1082, 2001.
48. Ross, RE, Ratamess, NA, Hoffman, JR, Faigenbaum, AD, Kang, J,
and Chilakos, A. The effects of treadmill sprint training and
resistance training on maximal running velocity and power.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 385–394, 2009.
49. Rumpf, MC, Cronin, JB, Pinder, SD, Oliver, J, and Hughes, M. Effect
of different training methods on running sprint times in male youth.
Pediatr Exerc Sci 24: 170–186, 2012.
50. Satkunskien_e, D, Rauktys, D, and Stanislovaitis, A. The effect of
power training on sprint running kinematics. Educ Phys Train Sport
72: 116–122, 2009.
VOLUME 29 | NUMBER 4 | APRIL 2015 | 1155
 Sprinting and Resistance-Based Training Interventions
51. Seitz, LB, Rivière, M, Sáez de Villarreal, E, and Haff, GG. The
athletic performance of elite rugby league players is improved after
an 8-week small-sided game training intervention. J Strength Cond
Res 28: 971–975, 2013.
52. Sif, M and Verkhoshansky, Y. Supertraining. Denver, CO:
Supertraining Institute, 2003.
53. Slawinski, J, Bonnefoy, A, Ontanon, G, Leveque, JM, Miller, C,
Riquet, A, Cheze, L, and Dumas, R. Segment-interaction in sprint
start: Analysis of 3D angular velocity and kinetic energy in elite
sprinters. J Biomech 43: 1494–1502, 2010.
54. Smart, DJ and Gill, ND. Effects of an off-season conditioning
program on the physical characteristics of adolescent rugby union
players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 708–717, 2013.
55. Stodden, DF and Galitski, HM. Longitudinal effects of a collegiate
strength and conditioning program in American football. J Strength
Cond Res 24: 2300–2308, 2010.
56. Thomas, K, French, D, and Hayes, PR. The effect of two plyometric
training techniques on muscular power and agility in youth soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 23: 332–335, 2009.
57. Tonnessen, E, Shalfawi, SA, Haugen, T, and Enoksen, E. The effect of
40-m repeated sprint training on maximum sprinting speed, repeated
the TM
1156 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
sprint speed endurance, vertical jump, and aerobic capacity in young
elite male soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2364–2370, 2011.
58. Upton, DE. The effect of assisted and resisted sprint training on
acceleration and velocity in Division IA female soccer athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 2645–2652, 2011.
59. West, DJ, Cunningham, DJ, Bracken, RM, Bevan, HR,
Crewther, BT, Cook, CJ, and Kilduff, LP. Effects of resisted sprint
training on acceleration in professional rugby union players.
J Strength Cond Res 27: 1014–1018, 2013.
60. Wilder, N, Gilders, R, Hagerman, F, and Deivert, RG. The effects of
a 10-week, periodized, off-season resistance-training program and
creatine supplementation among collegiate football players.
J Strength Cond Res 16: 343–351, 2002.
61. Wong, PL, Chaouachi, A, Chamari, K, Dellal, A, and Wisloff, U.
Effect of preseason concurrent muscular strength and high-intensity
interval training in professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
24: 653–660, 2010.
62. Yamamoto, LM, Lopez, RM, Klau, JF, Casa, DJ, Kraemer, WJ, and
Maresh, CM. The effects of resistance training on endurance
distance running performance among highly trained runners:
A systematic review. J Strength Cond Res 22: 2036–2044, 2008.